Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mikey T.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 71
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance to Venus, the sun, and beyond to STICKS!
« on: September 01, 2020, 02:05:55 PM »
If you make a claim, you must support the claim or it can be discarded.  The only way to support a claim is through what is refered to as evidence, there is no other way to validate a claim.  There is no mechanism to test said claim without evidence.  Evidence is the means, not the question.
In a logic example, evidence is the if, not the variables.  If A then B, if B then A.  The if represents the testable portion.  It doesn't care about the outcome.   
  Now faith is quite a different thing if we are honest about it.  True faith requires the absence of evidence, otherwise it is just another claim that may or not get validated.  But with faith you cannot know, with evidence you have a pathway to know. 
Where are these well documented topics?  The problem is, again, to validate a non evidence system you need evidence that it works, thus invalidating it and without evidence it cannot be validated.  I reject your claim of a non evidential system on the grounds that you have cannot have evidence. 

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance to Venus, the sun, and beyond to STICKS!
« on: September 01, 2020, 10:07:13 AM »
No you did not give a detailed breakdown.  It is impossible for you to produce what is being asked for since it simply does not exist.  All your nonsense about circular reasoning is a decent troll game, Ill give you that, but it is still troll nonsense.
What is impossible is any kind of educational discussion when posts meant to explain a contrary point of view are met with assertion and rejection and a minimal of actual logic and reasoning.

If you can provide a non-circular basis for evidence, as opposed to asserting what I have said is not good enough, I will welcome the new knowledge. Otherwise you are just getting in the way of discussion, or at least what little this site seems to be capable of.

Ok i did this before but here is yet another example of evidence supporting an evidenced based theory.  Also as a reminder, evidence is a word to describe a category.  Just spouting evidence to support evidence is circular reasoning is just idiotic.  This is not an educational conversation, it is a troll(you) hand waving nonsense. 

Suppose you are walking by a machine and a piece falls out of the machine.  You have the visual evidence that it may be a piece of that machine so you theorize where it came from.  You then investigate the machine and find a spot that piece can fit, giving you more visual evidence that supports that theory.  You then watch the machine run and that missing part allows that machine to make noises that it shouldn't, giving you auditory evidence to support that theory.  You replace that piece on the machine and it runs smoothly, visually and audibly.  Your theory was proven to be fact. 
Evidence is a word.
The "whatever" the word evidence is categorizing is not the same as some other thing that is also categorized by the word evidence that may be used as support for the other. 
Your problem is finding out how to prove a claim that proof isn't needed, which is rather silly.

3

Aether is out, Spacetime is fact.
Aether is doomed. There is no such thing as aether fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That's not very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. Since there is no aether it's clear as to why physics doesn't recognize it.

Fixed it for you



4
No you did not give a detailed breakdown.  It is impossible for you to produce what is being asked for since it simply does not exist.  All your nonsense about circular reasoning is a decent troll game, Ill give you that, but it is still troll nonsense.

5
How do you prove a non evidenced method?  The proof would be evidence
This is circular. You are assuming that the only form of proof is evidential, and thus non-evidential systems cannot exist.
What of non-evidential proof?
There is no such thing.  Proof is evidentiial.  Well proof in itself is a strong word but the closest you can get to proof is overwhelming evidence.  There is no such thing as non evidential proof.  To begin to prove a claim you have to have something in support of that claim, that something can be made up of many different pieces that all can be different from each other but all lend credability to the claim in some way without contradicting each other.  The easy way to describe that something is one word...  evidence.  Anything that sufficiently supports a claim id considered evidence.  Provide enough evidence and it can do alot to hold up a claim, provide not enough evidence and the claim can be easily countered, provide no evidence and the claim is mere fantasy and can be discarded.  So yes, there is no "proof" without evidence.  What you are proposing, without ever attempting to provide an example(impossible task) still makes zero sense.
Again, this is circular. You are saying all proof is evidential because you need evidence for proof. The problem is that the statement cannot be justified. The evidential system cannot support itself because it allows for no other means of proof.
What you present is a flaw with the system.
So what is "proof" then, please explain what it is.  I bet you can't spout out an accurate definition that can't be used for the word, evidence.

6
How do you prove a non evidenced method?  The proof would be evidence
This is circular. You are assuming that the only form of proof is evidential, and thus non-evidential systems cannot exist.
What of non-evidential proof?
There is no such thing.  Proof is evidentiial.  Well proof in itself is a strong word but the closest you can get to proof is overwhelming evidence.  There is no such thing as non evidential proof.  To begin to prove a claim you have to have something in support of that claim, that something can be made up of many different pieces that all can be different from each other but all lend credability to the claim in some way without contradicting each other.  The easy way to describe that something is one word...  evidence.  Anything that sufficiently supports a claim id considered evidence.  Provide enough evidence and it can do alot to hold up a claim, provide not enough evidence and the claim can be easily countered, provide no evidence and the claim is mere fantasy and can be discarded.  So yes, there is no "proof" without evidence.  What you are proposing, without ever attempting to provide an example(impossible task) still makes zero sense.

7
Well that depends on which vastly incomplete model you want to place your faith in.  UA, intimate plane, denpressure, electric universe, or a couple dozen other examples.

8
How do you prove a non evidenced method?  The proof would be evidence, thus invalidating itself.  Which means it isn't possible to do.  Which also means it isn't a method at all.
 However you can provide separate evidence to prove an evidenced based hypothesis. 
I say again, this is all circular reasoning nonsense designed to do nothing more than troll the forums.

9
There is no way to provide evidence of a non evidenced method.  It is circular reasoning nonsense.  He fails to understand separate forms of evidence are not the same thing.  He is trolling.

10
Wait, what example was given?  And you still keep assuming that because we use the word evidence for multiple different items that fall into that category then that mean they can't support each other because the descriptor word for that category is evidence.  It most certainly is not circular reasoning, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.  Please provide this example so we can help you understand how you are misunderstanding things. 

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do you see ?
« on: August 20, 2020, 04:10:52 PM »

It is best, and I wish I could follow this advice myself more often, to give them a bit of respect and frame your questions in a way that they would want to discuss things with you.  Trying to draw them out into a discussion that looks like a no win situation will not get you answers.

The problem is ALL questions are no-win ones. So there just isn't any avoiding them.
Dang it I'm trying to be nice and turn over a new leaf here, stop using logic sir.   ;D

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do you see ?
« on: August 20, 2020, 04:07:09 PM »
So, I am not sure if it was put in this thread or not, but the typical FE response is, you can see the same distance at shoreline because you can only see so far due to particulates in the air making it more opaque as the distance grows.  They can see farther from higher up due to less particulates being in the air at higher altitudes.  Basically as the rate rate as an RE supporter will tell you the horizon will be more visible at higher altitudes due to curvature.   

You need to frame your questions differently, the FE supporters here are used to gotcha style questions and will avoid those, they have been around the block.  It is best, and I wish I could follow this advice myself more often, to give them a bit of respect and frame your questions in a way that they would want to discuss things with you.  Trying to draw them out into a discussion that looks like a no win situation will not get you answers.

13

And this is the only example that you would accept. Let us not forget that. I could listen dozens of truths about the world, but the problem is if the support for them was not evidence, then you would not consider them truths. Do you deny that? Either it would be something with limited practical ramifications, that you would decide is useless, or it is something with many practical ramifications, and so you would claim that those practical illustrations, that evidence, was the original basis.
Which is why this philosophy is necessary. It is a fact that must be faced if you are to champion evidence. Do so, by all means, but you cannot if you do not also accept the fact that pure reason must necessarily come before evidence.

Or, to simplify:
1. The evidence-based system works.
2. Using evidence to demonstrate that the evidence-based system works is to presuppose the success of the evidence-based system, and thus engage in flawed circular reasoning.
3. Either the evidence-based system does not work (A), or the foundation of it is non-evidential (B).
4. A contradicts 1.
Thus, non-evidential means give us valuable insights as to how the world works. QED.

I fail to see how you can claim I am not explaining it. I have presented it several times. I do not present it as though it fits into an evidence-based framework, because by definition that is not what we are talking about. Do not reject it simply because it is different. If you believe there is a flaw, you are welcome to search, but wiser men than both of us have tried and failed.

If there is no evidence for it then it cannot be tested.  If it cannot be tested, it is faith.  Faith is not fact.  Faith requires there to be no evidence.  They are mutually exclusive.  What you are talking about and trying to pawn it off as an alternative is faith.  This is why you make no sense.  Understand, I am not belittling faith, it just has absolutely no place in the discussions about the actual provable natural reality.  You are still trying to claim it is circular reasoning to use evidence to support an evidence based hypothesis, noone said it was the same evidence.  Here, an example:  I hear my car crank up, I am not in it.  The sound of my car cranking is evidence that I base my hypothesis that someone is stealing my car.  I go outside, I see a stranger in my car, I now have further supporting evidence for my car being stolen but it is now visual evidence.  So in effect I proved the hypothesis, that I only made from gathering sound evidence, that my car was being stolen with visual evidence of it driving away with a stranger at the wheel.  Is that circular reasoning?  So now you give me an example of no evidentiary proof af a hypothesis without invoking faith. 

14
You misunderstand. This is not me objecting to evidence, this is me giving an example.

Evidence cannot support the validity of an evidence-based system, that is strictly circular, we all seem agreed on that. And yet we are all content to use evidence nonetheless to support our claims. The evidence-based system itself is the example you want, of something that we believe without support by evidence.
You could call the alternative any number of things. It is not circular reasoning, as we have said we are not using evidence to support the evidence-based system. That would be circular, and that is why we reject it as reasoning. We still use evidence. This is not to say science is useless or wrong, far from it, but to use the evidence-based system exclusively without recourse to what it is that underpins that very system is to use an incomplete view of the world.

This is not to reject evidence, but rather to demonstrate that there is by necessity more out there. This is not to say that nothing can be proven, just that if you believe in the concept of proof, you must by necessity believe in paths to it other than evidence.
If you do not, evidence does not sustain itself. Evidence is my example.
Please try to make sense.  The only way to prove anything is with evidence.  Yes you can make a hypothesis based on evidence and then use OTHER evidence to prove it.  It is NOT circular reasoning.  The only thing anyone can gather from your nonsense is that you reject evidence.  Or you are trolling which I am almost 100% sure of since what you say is designed to be nonsensical.  Again, the ONLY way to support a hypothesis is with evidence and yes you can study evidence and form a hypothesis which then must be supported by other evidence.  Without evidence you only have conjecture which is utterly worthless.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do you see ?
« on: August 19, 2020, 12:03:22 PM »
All this talk about the horizon on a flat earth. There can't be a horizon on a flat earth unless it is the edge of the earth.
At least not a sharp horizon.  I would say that a blurry horrizon would be possible for the can't see farther due to air particulates argument, but there would never be a sharp horizon line.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do you see ?
« on: August 19, 2020, 09:42:08 AM »
You've asked this before, it's been answered before, and it's the first post you make after being given the chance to post in the upper boards again?

Observations are observations. They are made directly. Regardless of what shape anyone believes the Earth to be, someone of any height, at any distance at or above sea level, and directly observe and measure what they find. And again, regardless of what shape anyone believes the Earth to be, both a FE and a RE person making the same observation together are going to see the same thing. So the only real answer to your question is that it depends on the eyesight (assisted or otherwise) of the observer. The shape of the Earth doesn't need to enter into the "What would you observe" question, because you are simply discussing an actual observation.

Yes , I know I have asked the questions before but never got a straight answer.
Another poster agreed that he had never seen an answer either.

There are simple "round Earth" answers to the questions but I have either missed the answers or overlooked them from the flat Earth viewpoint.

All I want are how many miles you could see from the examples in the post.
If you can't answer the questions just say so or point me to a source for the answers.
If they have been already answered.
I'm not a flat earther and I have no idea about the flat earth answers.
Well I have some ideas but they might be wrong.
If I knew the flat earth answer I wouldn't be asking the questions. LOL.
That's why I keep asking.
I can answer for the round Earth results with facts and figures which I have previously done.
But I didn't intend for this to be  any debating on my part.
I was going to leave that to any others - both "RE's" and "FE's" - if they wanted to debate.
All I am asking for "Is just the facts" and I'll be satisfied.
I didn't have any results on my previous tries so I thought I would give it one more try.
Maybe you could just tell me what you personally saw and I'll tell you just what I saw.
I assume there are some FE's who have ever lived near the sea or been at sea who could answer my questions.
If I don't get any answers on this try, I'll just give it up as a lost cause and drop the subject.
I am just looking for answers on this and other flat earth questions.
If you would be so kind as to just repeat the previous answers that would be good enough

You are asking about O B S E R V A T I O N S. We all live on the same Earth. It doesn't matter what shape it is when you are asking what someone would observe. Someone who is RE and someone who is FE (or Hollow Earth, or Concave Earth, or Earth Is A Spoon, etc), both the exact same height and eyesight, can stand right next to each other and observe that they see an identical distance before they can't see any more. That is how observations work. They don't change because of an underlying belief in any particular model or idea.
So discussing predictions of observations based on differing models vs the actual observations is too hard.  Pretty simple to understand but he could have worded it better. 

17
The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.
« on: August 18, 2020, 10:01:36 AM »
I have no words. 

18
You can develop a hypothesis based on no evidence, but you have to test that hypothesis with evidence to support it.   I can hypothesize anything, but until I can prove it with evidence it is just a guess.  There is no basis for testing a guess without evidence.  There is no circular reasoning, even if the hypothesis is based on evidence, the testing of the hypothesis requires evidence to be valid.  Otherwise all you have is a guess.  Your arguments make no sense.
Why do you believe evidence is required?
Do you base that on evidence, or do you have non-circular reasoning?
What are you talking about?   How do you test an assertion's validity?  With evidence that supports it.  There is no other way.  You can assert, guess, theorize, etc anything you wish but it is just an unsupported guess until you can back it up with evidence.  Where do you get that evidence based experimentation and s circular reasoning?  Do you honestly believe that because the word "evidence" is sometimes used to describe the "stuff" that points you to a guess and it is used for the results that confirm that guess.  Please tell me you are not just being pedantic over the use of a word and trying to claim that qualifies as circular reasoning?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris debunks the magnetic declination!
« on: August 17, 2020, 11:01:26 AM »
So if measurements cannot be used as results of an experiment then what can?  Please provide some example of an acceptable experiment with results.  I'm not sure how you can verify direction differences without measurements.

20
You can develop a hypothesis based on no evidence, but you have to test that hypothesis with evidence to support it.   I can hypothesize anything, but until I can prove it with evidence it is just a guess.  There is no basis for testing a guess without evidence.  There is no circular reasoning, even if the hypothesis is based on evidence, the testing of the hypothesis requires evidence to be valid.  Otherwise all you have is a guess.  Your arguments make no sense.

21
So, no experimental evidence backed discoveries, interesting concept.  Absolutely wrong but interesting.  How to you prove something like that to another individual?  That's akin to having different minor gods to explain natural functions like rain.  When we didn't understand how the water got into the sky to fall down, we invented a reason based on no experimental evidence.  Once we learned the mechanism and then verified through repeatable experiments with evidence we realized there was no need for a rain god.  The experimental process is how we test our suppositions and we have to have evidence to support those experiments to others and, if you are truly honest, to yourself.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: seasonal constellations
« on: July 07, 2020, 04:12:05 AM »
I guess it doesn't. 

23
Flat Earth Debate / seasonal constellations
« on: June 09, 2020, 07:17:12 PM »
How does seasonal constellations work on a flat plane? 

There are constellations that are only viewable during certain seasons due to the position of the Earth relative to the Sun.  These constallations are towards the equator.  How does a flat plane explain these?   

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........
« on: March 24, 2020, 01:45:02 PM »


Dr. Richard Feynman dumbs down the scientific method fairly well here, and in consequence shows how not experimenting or not having any way to test the guesses made is worthless.  Educated guess, determine the consequences, test, if not wrong yet you are good for now.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 19, 2020, 07:40:11 AM »
Yep, analogs should be as close an approximation as possible.  Say like viewing from the same angle since we are viewing a 3D world in a 2D picture.  If you move the camera only, the shadow/terminator line will not change.  Are you suggesting the shadows magically change to hide the flat Earth? 

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« on: March 07, 2020, 10:13:17 AM »
Really, nothing will change the minds of people who honestly hold a belief, whether it is based in facts, faith, or skepticism.  When you believe something strongly, all opposing "evidence" is invalid, all opposing viewpoints are wrong and sometimes "evil".  True believers of an ideal wont be swayed by any amount of opposition to their beliefs.  The argument isn't to change the mind of the person holding an opposing belief, it is for the undecided who may be swayed.  Of course there are plenty of people who espouse an opposing belief for fun or for some other type of gain.  Those individuals will never walk back what they pretend to support either.  So don't worry so much about changing the minds of someone who you think are wrong, just state your case for the peanut gallery watching.  Bringing actual evidence to your arguments helps, but apparently for some, is not a necessity.
What do I know though, I gave up trying to actually argue on this site a while ago.   

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Alien Life
« on: March 04, 2020, 09:55:47 AM »
no

you get two more guesses

If aliens exist, would their planets be flat too?
If the FE were an infinite plane then there would an opportunity of other "solar systems" beyond our current known area that could harbor more advanced civilizations who can traverse the distances between and visit.  So, in that model, their "planets" would be flat so to speak.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Videos
« on: March 03, 2020, 02:38:51 PM »
Another Professor dave FE video


29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: February 28, 2020, 10:50:39 AM »
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain
« on: February 03, 2020, 10:28:01 AM »
So, the "tool" shows what you would see on a globe.  You go outside and look and the "tool" was correct to what you actually see, for multiple times.  Sounds to me like eye witness verification.  So where are the "tools" that are based on a flat model then?  What is the correct flat model anyway? 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 71